Eventually it must because of full faith and credit. One legal marriage can't be treated differently than another. Once a gay couple legally married in one state moves to another that refuses to recognize that perfectly marriage and sues the end result must be a ruling that legal marriage is legal marriage and must be recognized by all states, whether the state performs such marriages itself or not, in exactly the same way any other legal marriage in one state is recognized by all and recognized for all purposes by the federal government.

That's why people don't have to get married again every time they move from one state to another in order to to be considered legally married in the new state. It's only a matter of time and probably not much of that. Heck, if you're married in another country you don't have to be re-married once you move to the US to be considered legally married. It's inevitable.

Full faith and credit doesn't apply. the DOMA ruling only applied to the Federal Govenment and Federal Benefits. States are still fully within their rights to outlaw gay marriage and thus not recognize marriages valid in other states.

Congress has the power to prescribe how such records are proved in the States, and until they pass a law saying gay marriage is legal nationwide, it'll have to be done state-by-state.

If Congress were to pass such a law, it would be immediately challenged by right wing "states rights advocates". The challenge would go to the Supreme Court and then the ruling of "full faith and credit" should apply, one hopes.

Interestingly enough, (GRAMMAR Alert) the full faith and credit argument was never raised around the birther issue of Obama's Hawaiian birth certificate. One the goals of the right wing radicals was to ultimately allow each individual state to determine who was a citizen and who was not.

I believe you're going to be proved wrong, OrangeFree. Yes, states can still have their own laws about marriage and refuse to allow people to enter into gay marriages in a particular state. For now, anyway. They no longer can refuse to allow inter-racial couples to marry so there's no guarantee that will remain the same. But I believe the final ruling will have to be that they can't refuse to recognize legal marriages, regardless of the state in which the marriage took place, or the rules in force in that other state.

A legal hetero-sexual marriage made in Colorado must be recognized in Virginia for all legal purposes. It's the same for all marriages made in all states. They all must be recognized in every state.

I don't see how the ultimately the courts will not have to find that every legal marriage entered into in any state must be treated the same way as any other legal marriage in every state for reasons not unlike those that negated the federal aspects of DOMA. Whether a marriage is between same or different gender parties, legal marriage is legal marriage regardless and I'm pretty sure the result of a suit all the way up will result in recognizing that they all must be treated the same.

After that, the only thing the states will be able to do about gay marriage will be to cause people the inconvenience of having to go to another state to get married, the way Jews and non-Jews have to leave Israel to go to Cyprus to get married.

I'm with Bluecat. What about a legally married couple that owns a busioness–as a legally married couple–in a state that doesn't 'recognize' gay marriage? How is income on that business treated when they file jointly as a married couple? States may not have to call it marriage, but I am not sure how they can get out of extending equal protections and treatment, especially when state and federal interact.

Please do tell how 'states rights' interferes with what the courts find to be basic constituional liberites. Take your time. Or, if you prefer, call me a name like the adolescent you are, and scurry away now.

Naturally he doesn't know it's not a states' rights matter. It's not about getting married but every state's marriage contracts, once entered in to, being recognized in all states. Already one state does not have the right to say that a couple who moved there from another state doesn't have the status of a married couple because they were married in a different state with, perhaps, not identical rules.

Already, If a couple married in Illinois moves to any other state they get to be treated as a married couple. If an employer in that other state offers insurance that covers spouses, that employer doesn't get to say that the couple's Illinois marriage license is no good here. The same with divorces. If you get divorced in any state you are divorced, period, no matter where you go next.

So if the courts rule that all legal marriages have to be treated the same and that all states must recognize (not necessarily allow on their own turf but recognize) all legal marriage contracts, there will be no loss of "states rights" as states don't have the right to refuse to accept as valid marriages contracted in other states as it is.

I honestly don't see how this could come out of our court system any other way than with the recognition that all legal marriages are equal in this regard. That will make it possible for couples to go to states where gay marriage is legal, get married and be legally married anywhere. Just like people used to go to Reno for divorces that used to be much harder to get in their home states but didn't have to stay in Reno to stay divorced.

That first semester, 80 percent of the students passed their classes, compared with 50 percent the previous fall. About 160 people attended parent-teacher night, compared with six the year before. Principal Ruiz was so excited that he went out and took pictures of the parking lot, jammed with cars. Through some combination of new leadership, the threat of closure, and a renewed emphasis on academics, Premont’s culture changed. “There’s been a definite decline in misbehavior,” says Desiree Valdez, who teaches speech, theater, and creative writing at Premont. “I’m struggling to recall a fight. Before, it was one every couple of weeks.”

Personally, I like the idea of limiting, but not eliminating, sports. The kids that misbehave the most are usually ineligible for sports anyway, or, if they're borderline, the coaches come around and try to sweet-talk teachers into raising grades and ignoring misbehavior so that star players can play.

Congrats to house republicans and the tea party on another ridiculous waste of time show vote today. I am sure S&P, Fitch and the like are keeping a close eye this disfunctional crew come October 1. Who needs all those A's in their sovereign credit rating anyway ?

I believe that there is a "poll setup " button within the diary creating menu. I've never tried it, don't know if it works. BTW, that's also the diary creation menu is the only one with editing and preview functions, so it clearly has much more functionality than commenting. It would be fun to try it out. Pols, does it work?

The polls button within the diary does work, but it wants a number. I tried some random numbers, and came up with random polls probably from several years ago, ex: #71 Should Suthers go to Saudia Arabia to plead his case?